Time For Christians To Wake Up And Think

Sometime in the 1980s, Christians in the West began to label evangelistic techniques and reconfigure church services to reduce the message to the lowest level of cognition in the audience. As nobly intentioned as that was, the end result was the lowest level of writing and gospel preaching one could imagine. Mass media was brought to aid this purpose, and before long evangelicals were seen to be masters in entertainment and minimalists in thought. As this was happening, the intellectual arenas were being plundered and young minds gradually driven away from their “faith” in the gospel message. Christians are paying our dues today and likely will pay for an entire generation.
- Ravi Zacharias - An Apologetic for Apologetics

My friend Jamie sent me a link to a debate of atheist Richard Dawkins against Christian theologist Alister McGrath. I've seen and heard some stuff from Dawkins in the past. He certainly has become seen as a threat by orthodox Christians, but in some ways I think it's a good thing he's here to shake things up. The quote above is all to true, and maybe Dawkins will help to reignite Christian thought from its slumber. The debate is below in two parts. I think it's about an hour total.

Richard Dawkins vs. Alister McGrath part 1
Richard Dawkins vs. Alister McGrath part 2

A decent bit of this talk, on both sides, doesn't do much. They find themselves at a sort of standstill as far as the debate goes. I think it is largely due to the fact that they are coming from completely different frames of reference. McGrath draws attention to this in slightly different, but similar words. It's not so much that religion proves God, but religion gives a frame of reference in which to test everything you see. He illustrates this with a quote from C.S. Lewis...

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

The real criticism that I see against Dawkins, at which point his side is not proven wrong, but begins to loosen is this: at any point I can accept and understand his facts and evidences as a human being of reason, but he cannot do the same towards my faith because he is not a believer.

Dawkins assumes that he can test Christianity or even faith in God by knowing their doctrine, their beliefs, and their history. I don't believe this is true. You can test physical things without being a part of them, but you can't test things of the mind or things of the soul (if you even believe you have a soul) without being actively involved on the inside. I cannot know exactly what an aardvark is able to think or deduct or what the exact level of their awareness is since I am not one of them. In the same way, and C.S. Lewis speaks on this in Mere Christianity, I can understand human awareness or what our comprehension and thought processes look like because I am human. Now reason is something all men are capable of, and I would say a spiritual connection with God is also. I cannot relate to someone of reason if I have no experience with it. Fortunately, our whole social structure is largely, even fundamentally, formed on reason, thus I am well acquainted with it and can relate to others who reason. But if Dawkins denies a God and is unacquainted with the practice of spirituality, especially that of Christianity for this instance, how can he assume to question a Christian?

In truth he may have more knowledge, but we Christians have an entirely different dimension or vantage point to look at the situation by (according to us at least). Sure he has every right to be skeptical of our "spirituality." I am living a life of reason. Dawkins is not living a life of Christianity. If he were really desiring to scientifically test Christianity, it would require for him to partake of it to test it, not stand outside observing it without experiencing it. The truth is, Dawkins can take this in somewhat of a scientific sense if he desires, but the rules are slightly skewed from tradiational science, where he must now observe from the inside and not the outside. This becomes a bit of a mix, like psychology is, where we understand psychology from others and also incorporating that with the inside perspective of ourselves.

Once inside he would have the opportunity to give an unbiased look at what is happening, seeing as how he can look through both a frame of reason and a frame of Christian spirituality. Christians obviously don't nearly agree on what that framework shows, but it's somewhere between "spirituality is the more important and dominant frame of reference," and "Christian spirituality and reason are equal frames, but rely on each other for the most truth." I tend to side with the latter. I suppose there could be reason to suggest that there is a third option that reason is the dominant frame of reference, which would be supported by those who abandon their faith for science. Either way Dawkins has not done sufficient testing if he has not sunk himself into the Christian life to judge for himself. I'm not saying then that it will come out proving anything for sure, but I don't think it could bring means to deny the Christian points and could have unexpected results.


The other marvelous point made by a woman questioner, is that McGrath and Dawkins interchanged God and religion like it was nothing. I noticed this from the beginning and was bothered by it. As McGrath agreed with after the question, these are very different things being said. One assumes a particular doctrine or sect of people, and the other assumes any who claim God. It's important to realize the difference, that God is not religion and religion is not God! I would certainly agree that religion makes people do bad things. Religion should be an expression of our search for knowing God if it is anything; however, God does not make is do wrong, rather it is our misconception of Him within religion that makes us do wrong. At least that's my take... but I think it looks pretty good personally (pride flaring).


Hopefully this will raise some discussion. Although I won't get so hopeful as to think anyone will post comments. I know my readers don't do that!

Do We Have A Choice Other Than Regression From Depression?

I should be reading a book right now, but I'm not. Instead I'm going to try to present sense of the nonsense in my head.

I was talking to my grandfather last night on the phone for quite a while. We often get into economics in our talking. He believes, as many do, that the United States is on the border of a depression. He's frustrated with the people in Washington who keep doing things that are blatantly bad to do, but they pretend like they're right (such as printing lots of dollar bills to depreciate the value of our money).

I started to think about that thought in relation to The Great Depression. My concern was this... During the great depression we were a production society, largely. We made lots of stuff and were much more self-sufficient than we are now. At this point we have outsourced all of our production, and we consider our country a country of managers. The corporations are here, but the work and product are elsewhere, being made my third world preteens. When the economy collapsed in the 1930's we could at least produce what we needed. We still had lots of private farms, we made lots of steel, clothes were still made here a lot, etc. Times weren't great, but we got by because people knew how to produce and survive. But what about now?

How does a consumer society survive in a depression? How much harder is it going to be for us to get food from nations with a much stronger currency. At least when goods are produced within the same country the currency should maintain a relative value... outside that country it just isn't so. If our dollar drops to $3 = 1 Euro how will we trade effectively? How will we afford things to survive? Do you get what I'm saying? Depression = poor people and few jobs, little money, having just enough to survive... how do you add the relative doubling/tripling/etc of the cost of everything we import when we import almost everything? Let me admit right now, I'm not economist, but this seems common sense with the little I know.

A depression will be hard and there will much bad from it, but I ultimately think it will do more good than bad for our future. It will reset American ideologies to being less greedy and more set on the "good ol' ways." I think and hope at least that would happen.

I've been thinking about the barter economy lately. It seems to me that implementing a barter economy into our current one would be more beneficial to individuals, and more conducive to individual small businesses. Even beyond that I see it as allowing for a lower cost of final product if you trade services/products for others. This is so abstract I apologize. I'm really having trouble grasping this in my head.

My grandfather told me about how things used to be much more barter-oriented. So and so needed help, so I went and worked on their house for about 20 hours, and in a month during harvest I'll need help on my farm, so they'll help me for about 20 hours. Or I'm an electrician and he's a plumber. I do his electrical work if he does my plumbing. It really ends up working better for me that way, at least it appears that way. Instead of having to pay the for the expensive electrical work, I just spend a little of my time. Looking at this I guess it is more normalizing of wages, where no one is worth more (or much more) than another. It seems to naturally do that to some extent, although it does not negate supply and demand.

Income tax becomes a problem when you are on a barter system. So do services like broadcast television that it becomes hard to barter with. I simple enough solution would be taxes on imports or just living in an area, paying a city tax. There certainly is a question of "is there currency if there is all barter." Good question. There would have to be some kind of IOU for workers of widespread service industries, e.g. Broadcast TV workers. In that sense there would need to be a currency of sense. Where we acknowledge that these people are giving us a service, even if it seems intangible or even if we don't use it, and in response we give these people a portion of what we have as compensation. I think I just defined what money is, but hopefully I reshaped it a little.

Don't get me wrong... we won't be a cashless society ever (or at least not for a very very long time). But I do think we should start implementing barter more. We're moving that way anyway. The government will need to restructure as this gains steam. They will no doubt pull the IRS with it's Federal Income Tax, and instead it will increase a tax on raw products or imports.

As we simplify we require less money. As the government pulls back frill that we've grown accustomed to it will need less of our money. Taxes will become less demanding. People will gain more freedom. Bartering will grow, especially with the help of our technology. We will become a relational people again, instead of a people that associate with institutions and businesses bureaucratically. We will bring caring, grace, leeway, situation, and more into our transactions. Our conscience and goodwill will trump our greed for getting more and more. It seems life used to be much more like this, not even that long ago. This is a fantasy I know. I believe it is a fantasy to be further developed and continued in hope.

Like I have stated, I am no economist, but I know if we simplify we can have more freedom. I know that big business and big government have taken away life we forget is even a possibility. They are largely the secret oppressors of us, our country, and to some extent, large parts of our world. Things used to work differently in the past, why should we not be able to recreate them, but with a new flare and hopefully better than they were?

Please leave some comments if you're a smart person. I feel like I make sense, but I'm fully aware that I'm largely ignorant about this topic.

Hard Questions

People who blindly go through life, too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions as to why they believe what they do, will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of the tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic.

- Tim Keller - The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

Sometimes I feel comforted in knowing I'm not as alone as I thought.

I think I should read this book.

Married To God Or Married To A Hottie?

I've been thinking about myself in lines with dating/marriage stuff. The truth is, I don't really know what I think about it. Truth be told (and anyone reading this probably already knows) I am not so great with the ladies. Regardless of this, or maybe partially because of this, I don't even know if that's the lifestyle I'm being called to.

I want to follow the call of God with my all, and sometimes I wonder if a wife would hinder that. At the same time I also wonder if a wife would help that, or if I'd go crazy being single for the rest of my life.

I look at the words Jesus said in Matthew 19. It's like Jesus is saying that there is hope even without a significant other. Some have this thrust upon them because how they were born or what others have done to them, but then there are those who willingly give it up for a higher cause.

But then again Paul says that it's better to marry than to burn with passion. Now what he's referencing here might be sexual or just that desire that Adam had for a counterpart. Either way the idea seems to be that if you can't control whatever this urge is, it can be distracting and unhealthy. God has called the union between man and woman good, so if it's called good and you want it, might as well go for it. Paul says it's good to stay unmarried, like him, but that it's fine if you can't do that. Perhaps it can be much wiser for the sake of the ministry to not marry if possible.

I guess in either verse it's not a straight forward thing, it's a one or the other. Neither are wrong, but maybe one is more right than the other on a person to person basis.

To me there are certainly attractive aspects to a life in humble service to God, by being free to do whatever he can imagine for me; as well as a life in humble service to God via my bodaciously hott/fun/caring wife.

If anyone has more insight on what these scriptures are saying historically/culturally, if you have more scriptures that should be looked at, or if you just have life experience or thoughts to share, all are welcome.

This is a very open post that requires your interaction.

I Don't Know If You Can Handle My Jesus

My apologies if this is scattered. I have a bunch of things prancing through my head (yes prancing) and I think they all have a common thread, but we shall soon find out

I spent much of this week, and especially the last few days, studying. Tonight I had another encounter of the Mormon variety. You know those encounters, you're a little unsure of how things are going to go, they say a few cool things, some weird things, and before you know it you're back home, having lost 2 hours, but your pants are pressed, your shirt is buttoned, and you think somehow your teeth seem whiter than they did before. At least I was able to pick up some chicks on my way home. By the way, if you don't know me that's a sarcastic lie used to make people grin or possibly chuckle if they have not developed a tolerance to me.

So I was studying because tonight it was 4 on 1. Four Mormons on one lowly rejected Christian. I didn't know how things would go tonight, but I always like to prepare as if will be a debate, especially when the odds appear so stacked against me. I'm not attempting to sacrifice any Mormons at the altar of Steve's Knowledge, but I don't want look foolish either (I seriously spent 3 minutes thinking of a witty way to say the latter half of that last sentence, but all of them seemed inappropriate or made no sense).

Our night was heavily consumed with Baptism. The attendees of Scripture Smackdown '08 were Kyle and Steve (the Mormon missionaries) , Morgan and Morgan (a father and daughter duo with the same first name... weird), and myself. Missionary Steve said little as usual. Dad Morgan was in and out of the room, but generally liked to gloss over the differences with long simple statements that resounded to "Can't we all just get along?" I appreciated these and they helped refocus us, but at the same time they sometimes tried to give negligence to the importance of an issue at hand... luckily they only helped me refocus to what crucial element was at the heart of the topic. Daughter Morgan was really neat. She'd listen. She'd agree if I said something that may not agree with what she said, but was correct. She had a sweet way about her that was patient, kind, and knew scripture really well; so it was nice discussing these things with her. Kyle was usually the leader. He likes to talk and try to dominate his way into being right, but not in a horrible way. He will not admit he has interpreted a verse wrong when I put it in context. He will say he can see where I'm coming from, but he will not say that he was mistaken and hold to his original viewpoint. That bugs me more than anything.

The talk was concerned mostly around the idea of baptism. They believe you must physically be water baptized to be saved (in a manner of speaking). I do not agree with this though. I believe it is really an issue of a repentant heart and a life that takes on the calling of Christ. We talked about water baptism vs. spiritual baptism and other stuff that didn't matter much. At the heart the problem was that even though I've been baptized, it doesn't matter. The authority of my baptism wasn't correct for me to have fulfilled that command they believe God ordained. I don't believe it's man's authority but God's authority through Jesus. I was baptized in the name of Jesus just as the Mormons were. This is the issue, and it seems like one they struggle with too to a certain extent.

I believe in a Jesus that is all about the heart. I believe in a God who is all about what Jesus has shown Him to be about. God cares about our heart. His punishment is for our heart. His blessing is for our heart. His example is for our heart. Through these his Spirit of Truth dwells within our heart. This is why the Spirit is so much greater than the law. The law is Jewish. The law is religious. The law is rigid. But the Spirit is universal. The Spirit is flowing. The Spirit is life-giving.

This isn't to say that the law is pointless and void. Like Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. But the law as a religious ritual is dead. It is about taking the wisdom that the law showed and incorporating it with the passion of hope and love. This isn't a religion of exclusivity, but it's a life choice to which all are welcome. I think of Jesus with the Samaritan woman saying that a time is coming and is now here when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. I think of Jesus talking to a Roman centurion, probably believing in mythological gods, and yet Jesus says that he hasn't seen such great faith in all of Israel as he has seen in this man. It's just... available. It's not set on rules. It's set on hoping in the impossible Jesus hoped in. It's about loving God and loving others. It's about having a pure, repentant heart that desires to live out the hope it professes. Beyond that, what does it matter?

We've made a legalistic religion out of a Way. That's what the early church called itself. It wasn't a religion. They were Jews before and they were still Jews. The difference was the life they lived. Jesus can go further because he's not bound down by legalism. He is uplifted by a universal call to trust in God and not man, to realize how he unfairly (for Him) stuck with us, and to love in good nature and good work. This allows Jesus to live outside of religion. You can corrupt doctrine, but you cannot corrupt the Truth.

When I got home tonight I went to FriendlyAtheist.com. The first article I noticed was about Mormonism ironically. A young man faced with what his church doctrine actually endorses made him question it. His questioning led him to research. His research led him to more doubt. His church led him to no answers. And no answers led him to atheism. All because Jesus had a anchor of doctrine tied to his feet. When this man grabbed onto Jesus, despite all the good Jesus brought; the undeniable good found in Him, you're still going to sink from the weight of legalism. You can't swim freely with an anchor chained to your feet.

I could relate to this story. How the more I learned the more I doubted some of the things I had been spoon fed as truth. The reluctance for anyone to try to supply a real satisfactory answer is leading me away from them. Luckily God has proved Himself. I will not give up on the Gospel of Jesus because of the bad news of rigid, unchallenged doctrine.

I continued on to the comments and found another story of interest. In some ways I felt like this story is my story. Surely not exactly, but a majority of the feelings (both good and bad) are identical. We have become division mongers. We separate against anything different in fear of contamination. We don't even realize sometimes if something is becoming infected until we can compare elsewhere. Tap water looks fine until you put it by distilled water.

I'm not opposed to doctrine completely. I adhere to doctrine, as does every other person (I believe). They are the rules of what you believe, even if you believe in nothing. The danger comes in making those rules stiff to keep outsiders out, while not allowing additional truth to sneak in. We adhere to doctrine for its wisdom, but if we do not give it room to grow we may all either be squished like playdough or squeezed out of the box we have put faith in. Thus why you find cookie-cutter Christians or ex-Christians so often.

I haven't fully discovered Him, but I definitely believe in a Jesus that is for everyone... not just theologically or theoretically, but pragmatically.

TED Is My New Best Friend

I've started getting into this TED Talks website, where at this conference great people/thinkers/talents from all around the world share a bit of what they've discovered and experienced in life. These range from entertaining acts, to great advances in technology, to challenging how we understand the world, to feeling the beauty around us.

I think these talks are a blessing of perspective that we should take advantage of. These individuals were invited to participate because they have important things to say and present. I have only watched a smalled percentage of these videos so far, but I will post some examples that I found interesting, with some of my thoughts afterward.

Open yourself up to the wonder, call to introspection, joy, anger, and forward thinking found in these words and testimonies.


New Insights on Poverty and Life Around the World - The impossible is possible!

This guy is really neat. Simple but incredibly self-aware and funny. He has a really neat program for comparing countries around the world in various aspects on a chart.

I think the end of the talk where he compares what different levels of income really look like, and where the life someone is living really starts to improve on the financial scale. If nothing else, pay attention to the very end where he talks about the goals and the means. I like how he rates the importance of the goals and the means; it really made me think.

Stop thinking of developing countries are going nowhere, they are often moving more forward than we realize. Look at progress rather than state. When you look at progress and the needs to attain the goal, there is hope for what seems impossible.



The future of the Internet - Interconnecting every picture taken on the web (novice or professional) to map the world.

We are currently using the world wide web at Web 2.0. I imagine that what this man is showing will heavily constitute what web 3.0 or 4.0 is all about. Taking what everyone has given and making it one through intuitive links. Experts have already said that web 3.0 will be concerned with interpreting pictures. In this evolution you will be able to find pictures similar to another one by computers analyzing the actual look of the picture. I see that going hand in hand with what this dude is presenting. Insane! Why Microsoft, why not Apple?



Fantastic Voyage Inside A Cell - Truth meets beauty inside the workers of our body.

This isn't huge on thinking, but it's very awe inspiring. You know, I like this because it's a molding together of the Easter and Western thought process. It takes our search for truth to far depths, but at the same time is doing so in a way that makes you sit back and admire.



Music With Your Whole Body - Making music more about hearing the sound with your ears.

This talk is alright until you realize something. The percussionist woman speaking is almost completely deaf. She speaks of music on another level than many of us realize. It is insightful how she encourages us to listen to what is being played by our whole body, in all of our surroundings, with all of our audience. Getting rid of all the rules and making is something moving and holistic. Anyone can be a part of music when you are putting your whole self into it, imagining it in new every time.

If you aren't a musician you may not appreciate this as much.



A Vital Story From A Photojournalist - Hard photos that tell more truth than any government would care to share.

This is a hard recap of the terrors of history over the past 20 years, documented by word and photograph from one man's account. This moving documentation is hard to watch but also necessary. It stirs up anger that must be used. This is what is happening. The world has a responsibility to take action upon information that cannot be refused.



As you navigate the site and view the videos, please leave comments about any that you found to be exceptionally moving/interesting/entertaining.

WiFi And The Omniscience Of Man

I don't know how to feel about this. It's kind of cool and kind of scary.




I just can't help but think man is getting a little too prideful with all this technology.

I mean heck... if the invention of brick lead to a pride God would not stand for, how much more would the instant knowledge of everything man knows be conducive to an even greater pride.

All unified under the common language of the World Wide Web.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching Doomsday here. I just fear for our salvation as a race when we constantly rely so heavily on our own ability and achievement.

I do wonder if God will choose to devastate our arrogant unity someday, "scattering" us by destroying the Internet or something. Maybe then we will stop building our city. Y2K (part 2) is coming, watch out baby. This time... it's for real!

Jesus... He's Magic!

One thing that has kind of bugged me lately is how Christians tend to believe in Jesus because of his miracles.

Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, rose the dead to life, calmed a storm, regenerated a man's ear, made the blind see, and so on.

If you take a moment and think of God. Wonder at His power. Dwell upon His omnipotence. Gape at His mystery. He is so far beyond anything we can imagine.

If God is so immense and grand in his power, why are we so impressed with the simple miracles he does? Not that they are meaningless or on par with our ability, but they are nothing for God. It takes less than a micro-fraction of power for God to turn water into wine or walk on water. It's like I wonder what's the point of caring so much about those things, when they demonstrate very little of God's greatness.

I far too often think of this Family Guy clip, when thinking of Jesus's miracles.






I tend to progress toward the deeper things, believing that things like Jesus's miracles are used to point to a grander theme.

For instance...

1. Jesus turning water into wine - Could have been his approval of parties of gathering together to celebrate something excellent, like the wedding Jesus was at. Even to show that God desires for those celebrations to continue on and on, and Jesus allowed the party to progress by supplying more wine.
2. Jesus healing the blind - Could show how God desires all of us to have the ability to see his glory.
3. Raising people from the dead - Could be a precursor to the resurrection God desires for all of us, as well as a spiritual rebirth into life in this world, found in salvation.

Notice these are all "could's." Honestly, I can find other ways of relating all of these to the deeper. But ultimately, even to the point of Jesus dying and raising from the dead, it seems there is something deeper there. If people believe Jesus is God, or at least that he is endowed with God's Spirit and Power, why should it be amazing for him to raise from the dead? He already raised other people, why not himself? Or more Biblically, God raises him, which should be very doable for the supreme being of the world.

To me the greater miracle there is that God could actually love me. That God could forgive me. It's something much deeper and much less believable than for God to raise another person from the dead... but rather to raise my spirit from its death. A physical miracle that we see shows what God can do, but a miracle that follows us individually and as humanity for all our days and beyond shows who God is. Seeing what God can do is impressive, but seeing who God is unbelievable. What truly displays God's brilliance is how he shines in ways that I wasn't even aware of. What seemed foolish to me is shown as perfect through God.

And I do believe there is something there... something of value in this perspective. But tonight I'm going to take a step back a moment, and perhaps move away from the deeper to look at miracles.

You cannot deny the Old Testament use of miracles and wonders to display the authenticity and power of God. When He was questioned, fireballs would come from heaven. When He long to help His children, plagues swept Egypt to instill the fear of the Lord in them. When a great military man with leprosy came to Elisha, he was made pure by dipping in a body of water 7 times. Bodies of water were separated more than once for men to walk across them and armies were defeated without a single blow by their opponent.

The Old Testament is held together by all these displays of God's power. It's essential in proving Himself and distinguishing Himself from the other gods. This is something followed up all the way to the New Testament, and even to now.

We know about all of Jesus's crazy miracles, but you hear less about the apostles, and especially less about any going on now... well apart from Benny Hinn (HA!) I think the truth is that the apostles didn't write about their miracles so much (although they are definitely documented). It seems the concentration was on showing people how following Jesus looked in their lives (by following the way), and then encouraging them in that way. The preaching and living of the gospel, from what I can gather at least, was much more on the priority list than miracles.

Why would this be? Miracles bring recognition to something. Miracles validated Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, the apostles, etc., etc., etc., and ultimately God to people, whether they be Jew or gentile. But at the same time, not all prophets had these great displays by their side. Many had nothing but their words... well God's words.

For some prophets, you had to wait to see if what they said came true to know if they were really a prophet of God. Others you knew pretty quick. Why the difference? Why don't they all prove themselves with flashiness?

I think it was necessary (at least to a certain extent) for Jesus to perform miracles. It's what gave him street cred, especially with his new, somewhat unconventional, message of Truth. They were cool and respectable tricks, but ultimately it was his words that were the miracle. A new way of living that made the impossible now present.

I've continued talking with Mormon missionaries. They always ask me if I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. I think not, but honestly don't know enough to answer fully. I do know he hasn't seemed to prove himself with any miracles. I don't believe any significant predictions have come to pass, and as of yet I don't feel his words don't piece, or always line up with God or history, like those of Jesus and the other prophets. People who follow Smith do some really good things, but those who do not follow him at times do even cooler thins than Smith's followers. So who do you believe when both are doing awesome things in the name of God?

How do I distinguish the true prophets from the false ones? Well I don't know if miracles can be my key, but I suppose they could help. You certainly cannot trust someone just because they make a claim to be a prophet. The two direct ways you can know a prophet are these: What he says comes true and the words will have the fire of the Lord's Truth igniting them.

For now, I guess the best thing to do would be test the words of any other prophet, to see if they have a fire to them (in life and by igniting the Word of God). And in the mean time, follow the prophets who have proved themselves. Jesus is the foremost prophet I choose to follow, and his command was to love each other, so any word from God should revolve around that.

This is something I'm still wrestling with, so if you have any insights I would love to hear them, so I can learn and grow.

I'm exhausted, my apologies if this post makes no sense.

Mormons Need More Overweight Black Guys On Their Team

Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons - Watch more free videos



I really enjoyed this video.
I love the Mormons... but I love Jesus more.

I've seen Christians do the same thing of strolling in to educate people, when they actually know very little. Once the tide changes directions they become uncomfortable. But for the arrogant and ignorant of any faith/religion, humility is a blessed thing of worth for the humbled and enjoyment for the spectator.

But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.

- Luke 21:14-15

Ron Paul... He May Not Be A Winner, But He's Got Integrity

Ron Paul...

I had heard nothing about him dropping out of the race, but in every way it seemed like he had vanished. I thought there would at least be some recognition if he had dropped out. Apparently I wasn't the only one confused.




How refreshing to have someone running for President, who is concerned most with winning. Paul is just desiring that the message continue to move, inspire, and transform the people of The United States. Doesn't it make you want to trust him? Doesn't it show you that he fully believes in what he is preaching?

Ahhh, refreshing. It's like a nice glass of water with a spritz of lemon on a hot summer's day.

I do still hope that Ron will run as an independent. He's said much to make us believe he won't be doing any such thing, but he hasn't given an absolute negative to that possibility.

I did stumble upon this old 1970's government conspiracy video. I was shocked that people have thought this for so long. This is the crap that people are making documentaries on now and Ron Paul is trying to expose (although I don't think he's privy to the word "Conspiracy"). I had no idea that these thoughts had been around so long.





I feel that this documentary is based in truth. There may be a few over-embellished aspects, but over all, I agree with the governments misuse of money, building up of itself, misdirection with "enemies," and so on.

Are you sick of me talking about this topic? Do you think it's nuts that anyone could think our government could be misusing our money or deliberately distract us with other incidents? Do you agree with me? Speak now or forever hold you peace.

Give A Man A Fish, Teach A Man To Fish

This entry will be something of a follow-up to my last post.

I have not been able to shake the last chapter of Amos from my mind lately. The end of Amos chapter 9 speaks of Israel's restoration. But it's final words seem obviously related to words spoken by God in Deuteronomy... except almost opposite.

God is no longer doing and giving to man in such a direct way, as he did in the times of Exodus. You see in Deuteronomy he gives them all these lands, cities, houses, vineyards, etc. that the Israelites did not create. They were just a straight up gift.

In Amos that is not the case. In essence, the cities and things given to the Israelites are now in ruin (both in what they symbolize and their physical status). It is now their duty to rebuild and recreate the things God desires for them. God is involved because he is the one that encourages the creation and good, as well as showing us what that good is, but he is not necessarily providing directly the final products (in the traditional way of thinking of this). Are we not called to go out into all the world and are we not called to do greater things than Jesus?

The response may be that we are able to do all of those things through Jesus. True. I do think there are two important sides to Jesus.

1. Jesus's humanity - The relatability of Jesus to the everyday man. It allows us to see potential of man when we are one with God. It is not foreign or impossible, but it is possible for man to be righteous through God, as Jesus was.

2. Jesus's devinity - Jesus speaks the truth of God. This divinity of words brings grace, hope, peace, knowledge, and love. These words instruct man on the way life truly works. It instructs man on the way to live that will make things better, even though it may seem foolish.

To do something in the name of or in or through Jesus is not just to "name it and claim it" because he's "the right God." To do something through Jesus is to take on the personality and teachings of Christ in what you do. When Jesus says our Heavenly Father will give good gifts or whatever you ask for in his name, it's the same thing. Those who love Jesus will obey his commands; those who obey his commands will produce fruit. False prophets are shown as those who seem to be saying good stuff that is pleasing to men, but is not convicting of God's will. This could be like giving a man a fish.

Jesus didn't come to bring enlightenment directly to all men, while he was on earth. He came to bring it to men and have it carried out by them. He appointed apostles. Much like a candle lighting another candle, Jesus was the initial flame. I realize that this seems, to many, to under-merit who Jesus was, but I don't think this statement can be denied. Jesus came to teach man how to fish... he came to teach man how to live and to spread such life.

What Jesus gave us was a way to reconstruct our faith and our world. We are going to rebuild. This doesn't mean that we gained nothing from the past. There is much truth in the old testament, just not the fullest fulfillment of truth. I would argue that the truth Jesus gave was not complete either. Everything he said has laid the foundation of on which to build, and is all the deepest ultimate truth. However, we must build off of his words, just as the authors of the New Testament did. We must destroy the places of society (of our cities) that are not portraying the life Jesus calls us individually and as God's people to. We must rebuild these and reinforce them with the foundation of truth, while exposes any weaknesses in structure. This is where faith and deed meet. At their intersection a daring new way beings.

Jesus started something wonderful. He built the foundation. It is our job to carry out the construction that Jesus started. Jesus could have given us all a fish (simple salvation), but instead God chose to make us his people again, he chose to entrust us with a great honor. We are now his workmanship, called to create in his image, just as he created us in that image. Since we have been taught to fish, let's fish.

How Are We Forgiven?

For a while now I have been questioning atonement. I ask why God was unable to forgive us without Jesus. Doesn't God forgive us because he is good, merciful, and just? Without Jesus do these aspects of God change? Does a good heart, righteous works, and a desire for God not bring his justice only because you have not declared belief that a certain man was God?

I have been around long enough to hear most of the standard rebuttals to this question, I have even given many of them. I know the story of man needing a perfect offering to be forgiven of sin, but did all of the goats, lambs, and bulls slaughtered really forgive anything? If forgiveness was not actually brought about by the act of killing these animals, why is the act of Jesus dying different?

One might say that what was done before was a symbol for what Jesus did on the cross. I might also ask why Jesus dying on the cross might not point to something greater. Perhaps the extent of God's love for us and his desire for us to be reconciled to His ways.

I have many thoughts on this, but none, other than my foundation, are set in stone. I am very open to comments here, but please justify your claims.

Also, I am going to quote the entire chapter of Ezekiel 18 here. It has interesting things to say about God's ability and desire to forgive, as well as our ability to receive.

Ezekiel 18

The Soul Who Sins Will Die

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
" 'The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge'?

3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

5 "Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.

6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of the house of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor's wife
or lie with a woman during her period.

7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.

8 He does not lend at usury
or take excessive interest. ^[a]
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between man and man.

9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign LORD.

10 "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things ^[b] 11 (though the father has done none of them):
"He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor's wife.

12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.

13 He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.

14 "But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:

15 "He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of the house of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor's wife.

16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.

17 He withholds his hand from sin ^[c]
and takes no usury or excessive interest.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.

19 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.

25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die. 27 But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life. 28 Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

30 "Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

I don't downplay salvation that comes from Jesus on the cross. I just question whether we are seeing the salvation as what it really is, what the source of that salvation is, and whether we are accepting it in the most appropriate manner.

LDS or LSD?

Well I finally ventured out of my home and met my Mormon friends on their turf. Bring... It... ON!

Let me clarify something real quick. There are those of you who may be concerned about my relationship with "another faith." You may feel that I am getting pulled into what they believe. I surely hope that happens in some ways. I hope that the good things they have rub off on me, but I certainly am not at the place of declaring myself a Mormon, or Joseph Smith a prophet. This is something I hope to do with many faiths. Mormons are just first. Jewish, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Buddhist, Hindu, and whatever other kind of faith offers itself to me; I would like to observe it and see what it is about. I certainly hold my faith in God and His love and grace through Jesus very dear, but I don't think God is completely absent from all other belief systems; thus they can possibly teach me another side of God and myself that I hadn't realized previously.

I attended "my" church today. I think I will go for one or two more weeks before I venture off elsewhere. When I got home I grabbed a quick bite, since the LDS church doesn't start until 1... awesome and crazy all at the same time. It also lasts three hours... also awesome and crazy at the same time. I changed my shirt to a button down with a tie, since that's how they do. I realized my shirt was cream colored and not white, and therefore was not too far off the shade of my pants. I switched to a blue shirt from working at Radioshack, but it just wasn't right for at tie. I found old pinstripe dress pants, just barely fit into those... but my belt didn't. My belt haloed around my waste about a quarter inch out, since it was too big and the pants were too thin. I ended up going back to the original, figuring it wasn't that close and no one would really care/notice.

I sped off to the LDS church and got there just in time, but they run late I guess. I met up with Kyle and he showed me around the facility. I met a few other people. And was reintroduced to a girl I went to high school with, Morgan. She didn't really remember me, but I had a class with her and hung out with some of her good friends (she's a year older than me). Morgan was super nice and very smiley/talkative. I remember she was always very nice.

Kyle and I found a seat and sat behind Morgan and her family.


The bishop got up and started speaking, mostly giving announcements. Now let me tell you something. Apparently Mormons love having kids, and for this part of the service the kids stay with the parents. There was noise the entire time up there, while the not-to-inspiring bishop muddled through the church happenings. The thing that I really wasn't expecting from such considerate Mormons is this; they loved to talk while this bishop dude was speaking. I think it was the kids created a blanket of noise, where their whispers could hide. Looking around the room, it appeared a quarter of them were whispering something at any moment. This did get better during the service, but definitely did not cease.

Two of the elders (missionaries like Kyle and Steve) got up to speak, since they were being moved to another location. They gave a few words and a testimony of the experience in the area. I thought this was really neat. It gave them an opportunity to tell what God was speaking to them, what their ministry looked like, and how people in the church had affected/inspired them in their journey.

Now it was time for hymns. I didn't expect this time to be invigorating, but it was little more than a murmur. The Catholics stand when they sing hymns don't they? LDS does not stand apparently. It just seemed like that time had very little merit to deserve the breath it took. Surely singing praises/hymns to God can be awesome, but only if there is depth to it. But yeah, I felt like t here was no point in even doing it.

We then had Communion. I forget what term they used for it. They pass around plates with the bread and water, not so different from my church, but I just didn't quite know the gist of how they did it. It was a rather fast thing. Grab a piece of bread, throw it in your mouth, pass the plate. Wait a while, grade a thing of water, down it, throw the empty container into a hole in the plate, then pass the plate. It was just kind of... rushed.

I think we sang another hymn after Communion, then it was time to be taught. Now this is cool, and one of my favorite things about the church. I think it's quite possible that they have no paid church staff. I don't know for sure, but that seems to be the case. The bishop is appointed for a short term (not sure, maybe a year or two) and the people who speak are chosen weekly from the congregation I believe. The was a woman of probably almost 60 and a man who was maybe five years older than her. The topic was atonement. Neither of them were professional speakers obviously. They didn't have the polish that my pastor has, but he does it every week.

The first woman had clearly done a lot of study on the matter, and looked for thoughts from many sources. She was almost a little boring, but you could tell she was thrilled to be up there, despite her composure. It was all very important, very real, and in some ways a recent exploration to learn more about the topic. Definitely very raw and organic. At one point she even started to tear up as she was talking about the state of things in the world like packed halfway houses, abortion, and the need for love. It was very neat.

The next guy was more used to speaking. He had lead a decent bit of group studies in the church and used to be a biology teacher. I was just thinking to myself, as he stated stuff about nourishment and biology, that getting different perspectives is so beneficial. As someone who is very knowledgeable about biology, he probably looks at scripture much differently in processing its significance. I couldn't help but wish other churches practiced this more often.

Afterwards, Kyle told me some speakers are better and some are worse, some boring some exciting, and everywhere in between. Honestly though, it's a tough gig. You're conveying something very important, and something you have lots of notes on, while little kids are squawking the whole time. It must be very distracting. I was proud of them.

After that we sang another 20 second hymn (only two lines) and it was over. Morgan's mom told me not to judge them on their singing. It was funny because I sort have had a little. Then I chatted with Kyle a bit. He introduced me to the bishop. The bishop asked me if I was single... I don't know if he was hitting on me. It was strange, but pretty funny. Morgan told me about their young adults ministry (although she didn't call it that). I told her she could call me about stuff, since they have a lot of game nights and stuff, and I like games.

I expected to be completely smothered by Mormons saying hi and trying to get to know me, but that wasn't the case. They were nice, but not really more than anyone at my church would be. I guess their reputation just made me expect more. It was really just like a Methodist or Presbyterian church without a pastor. So I guess in some ways I was expecting more, just because they're the ONE true church. Thought it would be a little less ordinary.

I know Kyle will probably be leaving in a few weeks or month, but Morgan will be around. I think I'll be talking to her more, since she is someone who knows her stuff, but also is probably good at discussion. My friend from high school, Adam, is one of her best friends. He's studying theology at school and gives her some good questions I guess. I think we'll have some good talks. Definitely reminds me of my friend Kelly... super nice, positive, knowledgeable, and good for a debate. This is mostly speculative, but I can tell.

So I expect this is the start of a good friendship between the LDS and myself. Hopefully you got something out of my first LDS church analysis. Next week I may stay for all three hours (only one hours this week). I'll make a "LDS or LSD? (part two)" post if I do.

Now it's time to make friends with some other faiths.

Holy Hillary!

My gosh do I love Photoshop!

I'm learning something about politicians. When all is said and done, they are people.

When someone is running for office, it is so natural to assume they are lying. How can you gauge their sincerity? What about that gut reaction you get every time you see them on TV, whether positive, negative, or hungry.

Thanks to another one of my better-liked bloggers/authors Matthew, I am gaining more perspective on other candidates.

As much as I would love to deny it, I'm biased to a sinful extent. I am denying candidates their humanity, and stamping them with their policies, their pasts, and even their political parties.

Every time I see or hear Hillary Clinton, my grandfather's voice creeps into my head saying "What a sad sack of sh*t she is!" "She's just a socialistic baby-killer." It's like I have to cringe when she appears because, much like Pavlov's dogs, I have been conditioned my whole life for this reaction. But I must come to the place where I realize Hillary Clinton isn't evil... well no more than you or I at least. She is a person with feelings, dynamics, beliefs, convictions, and humanity.

Hillary does not hope for the downfall of America or morality, as some might think.


And, despite her husband's fall into a sin made public, that was not Hillary's sin. It is unfair to label her immoral because of an action her husband did, and did against his wife as well as himself.

In an interview Hillary talks about her faith, which seems genuine, and whether or not it truly is genuine, I want to believe her. She talks about the role of her faith in shaping her life. She answers questions very clearly, without stumble, about her beliefs in scripture, God, and other faith-based topics.

"I think the whole Bible is real. The whole Bible gives you a glimpse of God and God’s desire for a personal relationship. But we can’t possibly understand every way God is communicating with us. So I’ve always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understanding of the time in the Bible might actually be missing the larger point that we are actually supposed to take from the Bible."

- Hillary Clinton

I spoke of the religious right losing it's solid hold on the republican party, and instead having something that is a combining of the right and left into what Jesus really addresses. Where we often associate Republicans with being strong Christians, and Democrats with being without any substantial faith, this really takes away a persons name. This takes away who they are, their nature, their individuality, and it labels them.

"Well I was bewildered by it, that it was somehow illegitimate to talk about faith as a democrat. I just found that so bizarre, that we were being written out of the whole faith experience. So much of the faith journey in this country are people who put their faith into action on behalf of others; people who fought for abolition, people who fought for women’s suffrage, people who stood up on behalf of the concepts of justice and so much more."

- Hillary Clinton

Perhaps in some ways the Republicans have been the faith and the Democrats have been the works. I believe James makes specific mention of how necessary and interconnected the two must be.

In some ways I think adding the Democratic sympathy of the weak to the Republican notion of God's goal of justice can create a satisfying stew. It will allow the two to check each other, not too unlike how I mentioned in this post. It would appear Hillary is at least somewhat in line and prepared for this bonding together. Once again realizing that Christ is available to all... neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, neither Republican nor Democrat...

"I’ve always been skeptical of people who wear their faith on their sleeves. I think it’s a good skepticism to have. But we’ve gone too far the other way where it was somehow illegitimate to express your faith in the public square. So many of us… we’ve been trying to search for the common ground where we can have these discussions without falling into the trap that is too easily tempting; that we are somehow judging based on our personal experience instead of trying to offer a perspective to kind of move forward together on."

- Hillary Clinton

I don't care who you vote for, and I probably won't vote for Hillary... but let's get to the point where we can appreciate everyone; where we can appreciate differences; where we can recognize that we are all unique, but equal, humans made in God's image.

I ♥ Huckabees

Alright, so it's not really true that I ♥ Huckabee. In fact, I'm still more of a Ron Paul guy. However, some things have come to light about Huckabee, too late for somethings, but not for others.

I half rolled my eyes when good ol' Mike jumped on board the presidential election train. Here is a guy who is going to make his platform all about religion. He will use his "faith in Jesus" to appeal to the masses, who will mindlessly follow a man who indirectly claims to be God's wingman. For me, that's what it was with Bush. I was at the place where Bush had used enough Bible quotes and the Christian news had showed him to be a dedicated, church-going man of the Spirit, that I believed God had ordained this man to be our leader toward His will.

When I finally woke up and realized that George is just a man, and actually not a great President, who made decisions very opposed to what Jesus would show the heart of God to be, I questioned my decision. I also questioned voting for someone for those reasons. After all, doesn't every politician these days say what is necessary to get into office? Who can you trust?

The person you trust is the one who doesn't automatically appeal to the majority of his party, addresses real issues, makes sense, and has integrity. For me I felt, and feel, that Ron Paul holds those keys better than any other candidate; however, I do think I didn't get a clear view of Huckabee, from what I'm reading.

"Unquestionably there is a maturing that is going on within the evangelical movement. It doesn't mean that evangelicals are any less concerned about traditional families and the sanctity of life. It just means that they also realize that we have real responsibility in areas like disease and hunger and poverty and that these are issues that people of faith have to address."

- Mike Huckabee

Mike sounds like someone who actually looks at what's going on with Christians, and acknowledges, dare I say it, our past, as well as where we're going. Sure all candidates will claim these things, but it's far too often in a distorted view. Huckabee realizes that Christians are realizing how we have built ourselves into a corner, totally missing major Christian issues. The others aren't unimportant, but new things are also being noticed as important, and previously ignored.

"When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he advocated spending money on poor people - behavior which is offensive to the economically conservative wing of the Republican Party. While Huckabee is a consistent social conservative, he is suspect by the party's economic conservatives who, of course, don't support spending any money on overcoming poverty. Huckabee disagrees with them."

- Jim Wallis

Even when it comes to illegal immigrants, Huckabee wants what's best for the children... he wants to give them a chance.

"I wouldn't be standing on this stage; I might be picking lettuce; I might be a person who needed government support."

- Mike Huckabee

It's refreshing when a president acknowledges that without the help and opportunities of education, he would not be on the stand, but picking lettuce. It's almost like he's saying that a little illegal immigrant, Mexican child could contribute something great to this country, given the proper education and opportunities.

"That there's now a pitched battle for the soul of the religious right is a horrifying thought to Republican leaders long familiar with the old religious right, a hierarchical group dominated by larger-than-life figures who'd anointed themselves Jesus's political representatives. But that movement is withering at the top and in revolt at the grass-roots. … What's new is how widespread social justice issues are in the evangelical world. Leading New Testament theologian N.T. Wright, a conservative, says that the greatest moral issue today is not abortion but the economic inequality between the U.S. and Europe and the developing world."

- David Kuo, The Washington Post

I don't think Mike is done. He won't win this election, but he's pretty young. Many opportunities can come in the future for this guy. Maybe he'll win an academy award for best documentary or something. Wouldn't be the first time.

I do hope that this doesn't become the new religious right or religious left. These are good things he's thinking as far as equality of all men and addressing poverty... but saving babies is a good thing too, and we turned that into something it shouldn't be. This cannot become a religious mandate, it must become a moral way that everyone can agree on.

Government is not the place for religion, but that doesn't mean you must check faith at the door. Huckabee's direction is very hopeful. It concerns itself in finding out the wrong and doing the right thing, instead of doing the "right wing" thing. I know there is belief that our old way of left and right politics are draining into a combined central political realm. Maybe soon our two party system will be gone... but we must keep watch on ourselves, as to not corrupt this whole thing.

I am also aware that some of the progressive drive I'm speaking of is readily found in the democratic side. What I'm ultimately speaking of, is having the right and left humble themselves enough to examine what they say, what the others say, what history says, and what no one is yet saying, to derive what will truly make things better.

Huckabee is expectedly starting this.

This post is based off information from a blog at God's Politics.

Mormons Not Morons

So I had my third meeting with my new Mormon friends... at least I hope they consider me a friend.

They came over tonight for dinner and conversation. The thing about them, and I don't know if it's all Mormons (I'm so generalizing it's not even funny), but they always get there early. I'm already running behind as is, then they come 15 minutes early! These guys are walking though, so it must be hard to gauge properly.

From the start it was a much more relaxed meeting than previous ones. It was like we were free to shoot the breeze, rather than mozy right into doctrine.

First Kyle asked me about the MonaVie on my couch. So I told him about the wonders of MonaVie and my semi-recent lifestyle change. He expressed how he had started eating healthy before he began his 2-year missions thing, where he eats junk food and stuff.

Then we got into politics and presidential candidates. Obviously they can't say Mormons endorse anything about what he had to say, but I think Kyle and Steve were thinking McCain, escially in hopes that Romney would be VP. I did feel it was kind of funny how they so openly endorsed Romney because it seemed a little too... expected... cliche... automatic. But hey, whatever.

From there we slipped into a talk on war, and if it's good, tolerable, or bad. We all knew it wasn't good. But tolerable/necessary and always bad brought up some good debate. It was a fun talk, while I continued to prepare dinner. I made a potato, pepper (yellow, red, orange, green), red onion, celery, pinapple, orange baked thing with olive oil, some butter, and lemon juice. It turned out pretty good I guess.

Later, around dinner we started talking about Mormon beliefs a bit more. I presented some stuff I had read that posed major questions to me, as to Joseph Smith's prophet status. It's an online book, which I haven't finished (similar video version); however, it wasn't looking good for Smith. I'll have to finish it, but I mentioned what was presented thus far anyway. Kyle and Steve knew little about the question of Smith's correctness in interpreting the "Book of Abraham" from a Egyptian papyrus, which scholars said to be only a death record. It is important since Smith himself had claims via his prophecies, that God's prophets could translate any ancient writing. If Smith can't, by his own claims, he is not a prophet.

Beyond that we talked some more about prophets, a line of high priests, human authorities, the afterlife, and more. I was, and am pretty skeptical of a lot of things they say. I am not against believing Joseph could have been a prophet, or even that Jesus came to the America's. The problem comes in their doctrine seeming to go against what I feel was the way of Jesus. Where Jesus was sending away the idea of elite people, or God being hidden at times. I feel this was open to all peoples of all faiths, if they obeyed Jesus's and Gods teachings. The verse just linked also goes to show that Jesus's words are always with us, and available whenever we seek him. This opposes the Mormon belief that man without a guiding prophet cannot be who God desires. I am not against prophets, but Jesus promised his availability. Prophets certainly could and may help, but I don't think a prophet is necessary for me to commune with God and know his will.

At the end of the evening, Kyle asked me if I believed Joseph Smith was the prophet he claimed to be. I told them that I wasn't there and was certainly learning towards "no," but wouldn't make a definite decision without first examining it and praying about it. Kyle opened up at that point and something really shined through him.

He began to tell me about some of the hardship that comes with giving up two years of his life at such a young age. He sacrificed playing sports at college, a girlfriend that could very easily choose to leave him during his missions, seeing two of his sisters get married, meeting his two new nieces/nephews, and a life that could be much more nice and normal. He gains no money for doing this, in fact he had to raise all the money. None of the Mormon organizers/priests/prophets... no one receives money for who they are (according to Kyle). There is no reason to pretend, because it's not lucrative and requires much sacrifice. Kyle's moments of laying it all down reminded me of Paul boasting of his trials for Christ, but not in arrogance. Kyle didn't seem arrogant, but he believed in something and desired to stand before God having done the things God called him to do. It was a beautiful display, and I felt like God and His Spirit was very much in every word.

I let Kyle know he should not wait so long to tell his testimony, because it is the most powerful and convincing thing either of them had said. The testimony says more than any of the scripture says on its own.

I truly still do not feel confident in the prophet status of Joseph Smith, or at the very least, lack validation for many of the doctrines brought forth by him. I do feel much more confident that Christ is active in their faith. They may be wrong about many things or I may be wrong about many things, but most probable is that we are both wrong about many things. Despite our wrongness, I do believe we are brothers in Christ, working for a common goal. I see God moving, so undeniably, in their faith, and I have seen his Spirit's impact on their individual lives. Whatever their doctrine, I personally can learn much from their lives and spring forward in my journey by the encouragement they share.

:::I don't know why I really put that picture at the top, other than it's Romney. It doesn't depict my experience with Mormons at all:::

A New Perspective In The White House?

I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. Out of necessity, the black church had to minister to the whole person. Out of necessity, the black church rarely had the luxury of separating individual salvation from collective salvation. It had to serve as the center of the community's political, economic, and social as well as spiritual life; it understood in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world.

- Barack Obama

I could be ok with our next President being aware of this faith.

What Kind Of Witness Are We?

I'm sorry so many of my posts have a sense of negativity to them, I'm hoping to have some uplifting ones very soon. I do like to think that there is hope in the recognition of wrong things and us turning away from them.

There's a new youtube-like website available on the internets. It's... well maybe you should just read for yourself.

Quotes taken from here.

Mission Statement

MuhammadTube.com/.org/.net, is a video-driven social network that enables people to connect and share with friends, family, co-workers and ministries in an unfiltered medium where it concerns the wickedness and filth that is Islam. The community of Christians use Muhammadtube to upload, imbed and share videos, upload and share photos, create their own blogs and forums, seek answers and explore their faith.

Yes! Finally a place where I can focus all of my "ministry" against Islam. Took them long enough. MuhammadTube.com, welcome.

Their mission statement doesn't even try to seem respectful at all. Total abandonment of objectivity I guess. And it's unfiltered... does that mean profanity and nudity are accepted, as long as they go to tear apart Islam?

"The wickedness and filth that is Islam." They do know that we share a belief in Jesus and the Old and New Testament, right? The statement they have goes to say that Islam is entirely filthy and wicked... even the Bible? Are we sending these videos to Muslims so they can convert, prospective Muslim converts so they can change their mind, or Christians who are looking for something else to oppose?

At the end of that statement it says this is for us to explore our faith. It sounds more like a place to claim our faith rather than explore it. You've already told me there is nothing redeemable about Islam.

Muhammadtube Vision

Jesus Christ is the foundation and cornerstone of Christianity. Because of His love demonstrated on the cross by dying for our sins, we now have reason to fellowship with one another and proclaim salvation through His life and resurrection. We place great emphasis on teaching the Bible in public, studying it in private and using it as a guide for our daily lives. We encourage Christian growth by abiding in Jesus Christ through His Word, prayer, fellowship and by yielding our lives to the Holy Spirit. Our endeavor is to show a Christ-like love to all men, and we feel it should be exhibited in our lives by our words as well as our actions. Our goal is to develop the ministry of every member to the benefit of all. We feel we are held accountable to help people connect with Jesus Christ and experience the gift of eternal life.

This sounds great if you hadn't read their mission. When you put the two together you realize they are contradicting themselves, or have a skewed view what Jesus says, or what "all" means. It would greatly appear that they are excluding Muslims from those to love, as Jesus expressed love. I don't think I've ever heard of Jesus condemning another religion, unless it sacrificed children or had barbaric practices that were obviously unethical... but not usually then, either. Love was embracing. Getting someone close enough to you that they could see how you do things and experience it themselves.

I'd like you all to know that I first heard about this site from a blog post on a site called Friendly Atheist. The atheists aren't angry at "God," they are angry at what is done by those who believe in God. They see a direct relation, all too often, between a religion and violence, hate, corruption, dehumanization, hypocrisy, etc. How is this site helping that?

The thing about atheists is that they are usually people of reason, and often times level-headed, or at least smart. Creating things like Muhammadtube.com makes nothing better. And that's obvious. It's feeding the flames of resentment from all sides, we are turning ourselves into the radicals we are opposed to. We are seeing them as our "enemy" with no redeemable quality, and because of that, others see us as an enemy.

And in the mean time, we are not doing Jesus justice. We are crucifying Jesus all over again. When we've been given and experienced the grace, peace, and love (the heavenly gift) of God and then abandon it by not showing it to others, we are denying its goodness and its power. We are denying the power of Christ, and the validity of his nature to act in the world. We are abandoning him on the cross all over, choosing Rome (worldly power) instead of Christ (the humble power of God).

Let's stop feeling like we need force to overcome our enemies, and let's encourage each other, in love, to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, those starving, those with excess, the condemning, the accepting, those who have conviction of justice, those who are ignorant to it; they all are watching, and not the least of them, God is watching too.